13 ms·

Oregon passes right-to-repair law Apple lobbied to kill

600 points by Lariscus 3y ago

resource_waste 3y ago
Maybe I read too much philosophy, but why doesnt anyone see that when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral(If you subscribe to ethical institution). Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population with these anti-consumer acts. What I can't understand is: If a single human lobbied the government for a selfish cause, they would be an a-hole. Why is this different? I'm all for an equal playing field, lets all go Realpolitik, everyone goes amoral. I just find it odd and a bit frustrating that corporations can commit immoral acts but humans cannot. I imagine this causes inequality.
- Drakim 3y ago
  Modern capitalism has created a sort of new type of nobility out of corporations, a layer of entities above that of citizens. Just as you say, their actions are not judged by the same standard we'd use for normal people, and they can actually just get away with fines for breaking laws that would land normal people in jail. And actions we'd deep deeply immoral for normal people to engage in are morally acceptable for them.
  - sQL_inject 3y ago
    I would refine your statement slightly, it's modern corporatism, not capitalism. We hold corporations in too high of regard and have intermingled what should be free and open exchange of money and goods with governmental power, lobbying.
    - Drakim 3y ago
      Sure, but names aren't what's important here. It's the logical conclusion to capitalism, even if it's more fitting to call it corporatism. Either the government is big and the corporations lobbies and gets undue influence over how society and it's laws operates though the government, or the government is small and the corporations get undue influence over how society and it's law operates though sheer unregulated societal power. The group who controls your means of getting food, shelter, medicine, and information will have power over your life, and will bend the rules to their advantage using that power.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Boss: "If you don't like the pay they can find another job" You: "I found another job" Boss: "What about loyalty? Are you a job hopper?" You feel bad for some reason. The morality we were taught in preschool largely serves the interests of the elite. Things like "if someone does you wrong, don't seek revenge, forgive them" are really helpful messages to have ingrained in society when you are a corporate looter with a name and a address.
- latexr 3y ago
  You’re starting from the assumption that no one thinks what Apple is doing is wrong or immoral, but that isn’t true. They have been and continue to be criticised to no end, for this very matter and others, including on Hacker News. Search for Apple and Right to Repair as keywords and see for yourself. Add Louis Rossmann to the mix and you can’t miss it.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Personally, I'm just jaded. Corporations have acted this way as long as I can remember. I just accept that corporations act like sociopaths and the people running the large corporations are more interested in buying a new yacht than doing the right thing.
  - sumtechguy 3y ago
    Apple changed in about 1996. When Steve Jobs came back he ended all of that 3rd party business. It was costing his company money. They went from a starting to thrive secondary clone market. To a closed off eco system pretty much overnight. It used to be fairly easy to get info on parts and what to do from Apple. That singular act saved Apple from becoming the next IBM. However, it doomed the rest of us to this weird dynamic of Apple choosing when to help the little guy out or not. Usually it seems to fall on the 'not' side. If Apple had always been this way it would not be as frustrating.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  To play the devil's advocate, the US economic system doesn't have a clear notion of what is selfish or not. One reason why lobbying is allowed in the first place is to let corporations express what is good and bad for them and have their interests in the balance. The assumption is what's good for corporations increases the overall market and benefits society. Doubting that assumption is probably out of the current overtone window[edited]
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Knowing both sides of the argument around this topic and apple, it's not hard to understand why apple has a compelling argument and why it still deserves to be heard. You have to remember that tons of people have near zero tech awareness, and regardless of the laws, will just bring their iPhone to the Apple store if it breaks. The same way people still go to dealers to fix their car, even out of warranty. This means Apple can say "Hey, give us full control of your phone repairs, and we can kill the theft market for iPhones. You are going to come to us anyway, so might as well let us end iPhone theft too" So this is why lawmakers still sit down with Apple. And the generous lunches. (Apple DRM'ing all the internal hardware does effectively make stolen iphones completely worthless, in whole or in parts.) -For the record, I have personally written my senator before asking him to support right to repair laws.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I wonder what would happen if the law required devices with unpaired parts to be available, but still allowing the sale of devices with paired parts.
    - Someone 3y ago
      If there would be enough unpaired devices in the wild, both types of devices would get stolen (or, worse, robbed, with risk of bodily harm). Thieves would not return the ones that are worthless to them to their owners (why would they take that risk?). So, it would make the protection worthless for those willing to opt-in. And no, making it somewhat easy to check whether a phone is locked down wouldn’t help. Thieves and robbers won’t spend even a second to do that check while still near the crime scene. It would have to be absolutely obvious (say by having orange and black devices) for thieves to not steal the locked-down ones.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        Presumably the unpaired parts would pair after being installed
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  This comes across as teenage thoughts masquerading as philosophy. “Neurotransmitters signalling pain…”. What? Massive citation needed. Words mean things. “People get sad about things, yet things happen” is thought-terminating nonsense. Nobody, not even Tim Cook, considers themselves the Bad Guy. The real world doesn’t work like that. This situation is certainly more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. If you’ve been part of basically any discussion about this topic, you’d see that there are multiple sides. Starting from a position of “my preconceived view is correct and no other view exists” is intellectually dishonest and wilful ignorance.
- yungporko 3y ago
  does anybody not see it? isn't the issue just that we're powerless to stop it?
- Goronmon 3y ago
  ...when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral Would you consider this to be true if the government was on the wrong side of an issue? Say politicians wanted to pass a law that every internet search query needed to reviewed and approved by a human before search results could be displayed. Would it be "measurably immoral" for Google to lobby against this law?
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    [flagged]
- ribit 3y ago
  Why would you think that replacement part authentication is immoral? Quite in contrary, I’d say it’s an important safety feature for devices that have access to extremely sensitive data. It’s just important that the user has the authorization rights, and not the company.
  - goku12 3y ago
    Did anyone mention parts authentication? Regardless, you seem to have answered the question you raised. Concepts like parts authentication and secure boot are great in theory. The immoral part is their implementation. They're designed to wrestle the post-sale control of devices away from the customer and consolidate it in the hands of the manufacturer. Besides the subversion of the concept of ownership itself, this leads to increased cost of device ownership in many different ways.
    - jajko 3y ago
      Its a bit like PR stunt for the techies here, while giving master keys to whole cloud to NSA behind the doors. And to claim this will never-ever-pinky-promise-happen we shall show it on some highly publicized FBI case. Maybe there were good intentions in the beginning and path was truly a good one, but not for a nanosecond do I believe they really made it 100%. Phone is simply not a secure device, doesn't matter who manufactures it, period. Neither are all the networks used to connect anywhere. If all this lowers theft its a good strategy overall, but with terrible misguided marketing.
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        Actual techies are interested in the inner workings and can see past marketing. The group you're referring to is either the wider public that doesn't have the technical expertise to analyze the claims made, or Apple loyalists who uncritically accept and defend Apple's reasoning. If this had anything to do with theft, Apple would only blacklist parts which were inside the device at the time of theft, and otherwise provide "pairing" tools for free.
- finnjohnsen2 3y ago
  > Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population I love this formulation
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Maybe I read too much philosophy… Or maybe not enough? Several philosophical frameworks are perfectly compatible with Apple doing legal things to benefit themselves and their customers.
- throwaway48476 3y ago
  Companies are just a trick to make you think they're not made of of people when in fact it's just a mask for decisions made by real fleshy humans. When a company does something immoral it is because a human at the company did something immoral.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
The text of this law is here [1]. The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust. Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do anything. You can be just an average person repairing your own device, in which case the manufacturer must work with you. But you can expect to be forced to prove that you own the device before that happens. [1] https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1596/Enrolled https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/Meas...
- Spivak 3y ago
  It's the same for doing work on your house. If you're the owner you don't need to be licensed to do most repairs or renovations but to work on other people's houses you need certification. Not saying it's a good system, just that it's consistent.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    No, this would be like if the city's electrical supply house got to choose what counted as an electrical qualification.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    The difference being is that electricians are certified by a real and reputable body and manufacturers don’t get to pick and choose. No doubt they will weaponise this ability
    - samatman 3y ago
      No they won't. The disconnect between computer programming and law is a rich and perennial source of amusement here on Hacker News. What happens if the manufacturer decides to be unreasonable, by saying that no industry standard of certification is acceptable, or just the one organization they founded themselves, or that sort of thing, is that they get a sharply-worded letter from the Oregon DA. If they don't sort it out then legal action will be taken. So they're not going to do that in the first place, because everyone actually involved in this stuff already knows that. The law isn't compiled. Its function relies on a common understanding of context which is the major course of study in law school. If a CEO ordered a company to do the sort of thing you're proposing, it would be against the advice of council.
bobim 3y ago
So next phone is going to be a FairPhone. Some companies are playing the game, vote with your wallet.
- dangus 3y ago
  If they supported the US it would be a lovely option. I’m personally just not buying a smartphone that isn’t being tested on US networks.
  - bobim 3y ago
    The 4 seems to be available. 5 not yet.
    - dangus 3y ago
      Even the 4 being available through some kind of weird but official third party is kind of off to me. I really don’t understand how they haven’t prioritized the US market by now. It is probably the market that spends the most on phones.
      - anticrymactic 3y ago
        The US is also the region with the strongest iOS market dominance. Why compete for 30% of a saturated market, when EU/ME/India is more lucrative and also much closer to the EU based operation. It just makes more sense to focus on domestic markets. Same with many US brands.
- digging 3y ago
  > vote with your wallet. In other words, do nothing of any impact.
  - bobim 3y ago
    it's just that it's the only lever you have at hand that is actually wired to something.
sircastor 3y ago
There’s a lot about right to repair that’s important. One thing I’m curious about is how “certified” correlates with “how we want you to fix it” Apples approach has often been at a module level: replace the logic board, replace the battery, etc. Board repair houses often operate at the component level: replace a damaged chip. In the case of the latter, access to schematics and board layout makes this possible, and I’m sure Apple (and everyone else) has zero interest in making these available. Likewise with custom parts. Modules, but not chips.
- UberFly 3y ago
  I don't understand who hands out the certifications. Apple?
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Apples approach has often been at a module level: replace the logic board, replace the battery, etc. Board repair houses often operate at the component level: replace a damaged chip. With a VERY liberal view of "module". I had an MBA with a damaged battery charging circuit. Battery was fine. Computer was fine on AC. Just couldn't get current to battery. Oh, okay, few hundred bucks? "The estimate to repair is $850..." Followed rapidly, "Do you want to take a look at the new MBAs and maybe we look at you getting into something upgraded instead?"
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] Some more discussion last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39606952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39606952
chalst 3y ago
-> But it also takes aim at “parts pairing,” or the practice of preventing you from replacing device parts without the approval of a company or its restrictive software. Apple, which routinely uses this practice to try and monopolize repair, lobbied extensively against the Oregon bill. As usual, under the (false) claim that eliminating parts pairing would put public safety and security at risk: -> “We remain very concerned about the risk to consumers imposed by the broad parts-pairing restrictions in this bill,” John Perry, principal secure repair architect for Apple, said at a legislative hearing last month.” There was a time when interpreting the “risk to consumers” as a risk of being prevented from gouging consumers would be cynical. Now I guess something like that occurred to the lawyers.
- hedora 3y ago
  It does sound like this means it's now easier to get a touch screen, embed a tap logger in it, and then swap someone else's screen with it. (Similarly, for the camera module, etc, etc.) A better approach would be to force Apple to allow the device owner to pair parts (third party or not), and for Apple to provide a list of authorized non-OEM parts to anyone that was considering buying a used phone. Also, I wonder what this does to the anti-theft mechanisms. Before touch id, basically nobody set screen passwords, and phones were stolen at extremely high rates. After that, and because a stolen iPhone is marked as such and won't work with Apple services, phone theft dropped to almost zero. If Apple's not allowed to prevent the pairing of the stolen parts in Oregon, I'm guessing it will lead to a black market industry there, where people launder stolen phone parts into refurbished phones by mixing them with parts from broken phones.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    The point of module-level pairing is to make every module is identifiable, correct? Furthermore, these devices are only usable when connected to the internet. IF their goal was merely to prevent theft, they could achieve that goal by simply blacklisting individual components when a device is reported stolen. Apple knows precise serial numbers of every paired component installed in that device, they just need to host a database of stolen parts that devices could query on every boot and on a set interval. Of course, that's not their true goal, so they treat everyone like thieves in the hopes that they buy a new device instead.
pcdoodle 3y ago
Apple behaviour has invoked the "pause button" on my purchasing of new hardware from them. Nobody wants to build on your platform if you're a tyrant.
- RussianCow 3y ago
  > Nobody wants to build on your platform if you're a tyrant. [citation needed] In practice, I think people mostly follow the money and idealism barely factors into it.
dahdum 3y ago
I don’t think bills like this will matter in several years for phones, unless they somehow start forcing manufacturers to design for manual repair. The end game for all these manufacturers is a phone assembled, repaired, and disassembled for recycling entirely by machine. I believe they already do this for the recycling. I support right to repair in general, and I’m not particularly opposed to this bill, but it seems a bit hopeless in the long run.
- blkhawk 3y ago
  lol no thas not the end goal because its a net negative to repair stuff no matter how cheap and easy you can do it. Every repaired last years model is a this years model not sold. Manufacturers try to pretend that they are pro repair but very few are really.
  - blkhawk 3y ago
    anybody who has manual manipulators and a manual can repair a manually repairable device. A device that needs special tools to break open or take apart increases the likelyhood that its just tossed and this years new model is bought instead.
  - dahdum 3y ago
    The end goal is automation and functionality regardless of how difficult it makes manual repair. Almost nobody values manual repair capability when purchasing, so why would manufacturers? Consumers just want easy repair/replace when it happens, and the more resilient the product the less they care.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  Even if they don't explicitly design for manual repair, forcing them to publicly provide schematics, individual components (directly or through an agreement with their supplier), and any software required to successfully complete the repair would be a big step in the right direction.
jetti 3y ago
Most of the talk seems to be around Apple, which makes sense since they were opponents of the bill but I am more interested to see how this affects game console manufacturers. I had a longer post I had typed out about how console manufacturers have prevented non-authorized peripherals in the past with parts pairing and I was curious how that would affect the consoles going forward. I re-read the parts pairing section to make sure I read it correctly and then stumbled upon the section that refers to what the parts pairing restriction does not apply to and it is clearly written out that it does not apply to video game consoles. I find it very interesting that this applies to smart phones but not to video game consoles at all.
- silexia 3y ago
  Apple is the biggest scumbag opponent of right to repair.
- dml2135 3y ago
  The video game console question is very interesting. I think a lot of right-to-repair advocates, right now, are fine with carving out an exception, for a few reasons. One, video game consoles have no pretense to being generalized computing devices. They are more similar to appliances, and while that appliance status is arguable, they are definitely closer to that right now than smartphones. Two, people have nostalgia for video game consoles. They like the packaged nature of it and generally have more good will towards console manufacturers than computer manufacturers (although that part is arguable and may be changing). Three is politics. It's already hard enough to go up against companies like Apple to get these bills passed. You do not want Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo lining up to oppose you as well. With all that said though, there is no reason I can see that the arguments used for right to repair -- that users should have full control over the devices they own -- should not also apply to video game consoles. But doing so would mean that consoles are no different than PCs, and would have huge implications for the industry. Those lines are being blurred already with things like the Steam Deck and I think we're just a few years away from that upheaval, but it hasn't quite happened yet -- hence you see these carve-outs. edit: Upon rereading what I wrote I realize that I may be conflating right-to-repair with regulations around app stores and walled gardens. They're not exactly the same thing, but I do think they touch on the same issues of the meaning of ownership, which is what set me off.
shkkmo 3y ago
What happens if a company refuses to sell in Oregon, can they skirt the law?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Oregon’s laws can only apply to products sold in Oregon.
- mrinterweb 3y ago
  I wonder about this too. People would probably buy through 3rd parties (Amazon, etc). I don't know if the law would restrict Amazon and other vendors to not sell non-compliant devices in Oregon. Thing is, it is not just Oregon. Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, Minnesota, Maine and California all have right to repair laws. It is not possible for companies to remain competitive and not sell in those states.
radicaldreamer 3y ago
Until recently you couldn’t pump your own gas in Oregon
mattbillenstein 3y ago
Recently bought a Framework laptop - their mission is easily repairable diy hardware with good software (Linux!) support. Still using an iPhone though - it is a bit crazy how expensive these have gotten and how repairs can be so expensive.
dependsontheq 3y ago
I think it’s hilarious that a lot of people here talk about the bureaucracy in Europe and then immediately switch to specific state laws regulating technology for one state.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  The people who oppose EU regulation of tech probably also oppose this. The people who support that probably also support this. The mistake you're making is "everybody except me is one person."
  - dependsontheq 3y ago
    I didn't argue for or against regulation, my point is that the US regulations structure with specific states defining technological regulation is even more insane than EU regulations on technology. Because common market regulations are clearly defined as EU responsibility.
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      You implied that people here are being hypocritical for supporting one but criticizing the other. However you never established that it's the same people who have these evidently contradictory opinions. If it's different people having different opinions then there is no "switching", no hypocrisy, nothing for you to find hilarious.
tantalor 3y ago
Letting owners repair their own devices is great and should align well with existing warranties for tech stuff. The other day, a volume button on my bluetooth speaker stopped working and I could tell it was damaged so I opened it up and found the circuit board supporting the button was snapped. When I initially approached the manufacturer for a warranty, they declined because they assumed I had taken the device to a non-approved repair shop, which would void the warranty. When I explained, no I'm the owner (here's the receipt), and I opened it up to check for damage, then they fulfilled the warranty no problem.
justinzollars 3y ago
Easy solution. Just stop selling new devices in Oregon.
sashank_1509 3y ago
consider this, if Apple makes you sign a form that when buying this iPhone, you have no right to repair it on your own or take it to a non authorized repair shop. You must go to Apple to get those repairs. How many consumers do you think would sign this? I reckon a good large majority, at least the number of people buying Apple care now would buy this. This is what kills right to repair, Apple and similar companies obviously lobby against it, but that’s not what kills Right to repair, the fact is regardless of the number of laws passed to support right to repair, until a majority of consumers are willing to repair stuff on their own or with third party repair-ers, right to repair will only matter to the small minority of people who care about it.
- uncletammy 3y ago
  Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer and there are millions of consumers of non-apple hardware that will gleefully welcome this legislation. I agree that consumers are the real problem but government intervention provides a much needed safety net to keep these oligopolistic practices at bay while users slowly figure out why right to repair matters. We should be happy for any and all help we can get on this front.
m463 3y ago
I replaced my iphone 8 screen and battery at a third party repair service. What is great is that the repair was done in front of me while I waited. I didn't have to upgrade my OS or backup my data (though I did). It was fast and inexpensive. But... The automatic screen brightness no longer works. I have to manually adjust the brightness (which is sometimes challenging with dim screen in bright sunlight) I think the ambient light sensor must be calibrated, and only by apple. wonder if it can be fixed in oregon?
mgarfias 3y ago
I need to bug my neighbor about why he voted no.

600 points by Lariscus 3y ago

Maybe I read too much philosophy, but why doesnt anyone see that when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral(If you subscribe to ethical institution). Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population with these anti-consumer acts. What I can't understand is: If a single human lobbied the government for a selfish cause, they would be an a-hole. Why is this different? I'm all for an equal playing field, lets all go Realpolitik, everyone goes amoral. I just find it odd and a bit frustrating that corporations can commit immoral acts but humans cannot. I imagine this causes inequality.

Drakim 3y ago
Modern capitalism has created a sort of new type of nobility out of corporations, a layer of entities above that of citizens. Just as you say, their actions are not judged by the same standard we'd use for normal people, and they can actually just get away with fines for breaking laws that would land normal people in jail. And actions we'd deep deeply immoral for normal people to engage in are morally acceptable for them.
- sQL_inject 3y ago
  I would refine your statement slightly, it's modern corporatism, not capitalism. We hold corporations in too high of regard and have intermingled what should be free and open exchange of money and goods with governmental power, lobbying.
  - Drakim 3y ago
    Sure, but names aren't what's important here. It's the logical conclusion to capitalism, even if it's more fitting to call it corporatism. Either the government is big and the corporations lobbies and gets undue influence over how society and it's laws operates though the government, or the government is small and the corporations get undue influence over how society and it's law operates though sheer unregulated societal power. The group who controls your means of getting food, shelter, medicine, and information will have power over your life, and will bend the rules to their advantage using that power.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Boss: "If you don't like the pay they can find another job" You: "I found another job" Boss: "What about loyalty? Are you a job hopper?" You feel bad for some reason. The morality we were taught in preschool largely serves the interests of the elite. Things like "if someone does you wrong, don't seek revenge, forgive them" are really helpful messages to have ingrained in society when you are a corporate looter with a name and a address.
latexr 3y ago
You’re starting from the assumption that no one thinks what Apple is doing is wrong or immoral, but that isn’t true. They have been and continue to be criticised to no end, for this very matter and others, including on Hacker News. Search for Apple and Right to Repair as keywords and see for yourself. Add Louis Rossmann to the mix and you can’t miss it.
alistairSH 3y ago
Personally, I'm just jaded. Corporations have acted this way as long as I can remember. I just accept that corporations act like sociopaths and the people running the large corporations are more interested in buying a new yacht than doing the right thing.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  Apple changed in about 1996. When Steve Jobs came back he ended all of that 3rd party business. It was costing his company money. They went from a starting to thrive secondary clone market. To a closed off eco system pretty much overnight. It used to be fairly easy to get info on parts and what to do from Apple. That singular act saved Apple from becoming the next IBM. However, it doomed the rest of us to this weird dynamic of Apple choosing when to help the little guy out or not. Usually it seems to fall on the 'not' side. If Apple had always been this way it would not be as frustrating.
makeitdouble 3y ago
To play the devil's advocate, the US economic system doesn't have a clear notion of what is selfish or not. One reason why lobbying is allowed in the first place is to let corporations express what is good and bad for them and have their interests in the balance. The assumption is what's good for corporations increases the overall market and benefits society. Doubting that assumption is probably out of the current overtone window[edited]
Workaccount2 3y ago
Knowing both sides of the argument around this topic and apple, it's not hard to understand why apple has a compelling argument and why it still deserves to be heard. You have to remember that tons of people have near zero tech awareness, and regardless of the laws, will just bring their iPhone to the Apple store if it breaks. The same way people still go to dealers to fix their car, even out of warranty. This means Apple can say "Hey, give us full control of your phone repairs, and we can kill the theft market for iPhones. You are going to come to us anyway, so might as well let us end iPhone theft too" So this is why lawmakers still sit down with Apple. And the generous lunches. (Apple DRM'ing all the internal hardware does effectively make stolen iphones completely worthless, in whole or in parts.) -For the record, I have personally written my senator before asking him to support right to repair laws.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I wonder what would happen if the law required devices with unpaired parts to be available, but still allowing the sale of devices with paired parts.
  - Someone 3y ago
    If there would be enough unpaired devices in the wild, both types of devices would get stolen (or, worse, robbed, with risk of bodily harm). Thieves would not return the ones that are worthless to them to their owners (why would they take that risk?). So, it would make the protection worthless for those willing to opt-in. And no, making it somewhat easy to check whether a phone is locked down wouldn’t help. Thieves and robbers won’t spend even a second to do that check while still near the crime scene. It would have to be absolutely obvious (say by having orange and black devices) for thieves to not steal the locked-down ones.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      Presumably the unpaired parts would pair after being installed
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
This comes across as teenage thoughts masquerading as philosophy. “Neurotransmitters signalling pain…”. What? Massive citation needed. Words mean things. “People get sad about things, yet things happen” is thought-terminating nonsense. Nobody, not even Tim Cook, considers themselves the Bad Guy. The real world doesn’t work like that. This situation is certainly more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. If you’ve been part of basically any discussion about this topic, you’d see that there are multiple sides. Starting from a position of “my preconceived view is correct and no other view exists” is intellectually dishonest and wilful ignorance.
yungporko 3y ago
does anybody not see it? isn't the issue just that we're powerless to stop it?
Goronmon 3y ago
...when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral Would you consider this to be true if the government was on the wrong side of an issue? Say politicians wanted to pass a law that every internet search query needed to reviewed and approved by a human before search results could be displayed. Would it be "measurably immoral" for Google to lobby against this law?
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  [flagged]
ribit 3y ago
Why would you think that replacement part authentication is immoral? Quite in contrary, I’d say it’s an important safety feature for devices that have access to extremely sensitive data. It’s just important that the user has the authorization rights, and not the company.
- goku12 3y ago
  Did anyone mention parts authentication? Regardless, you seem to have answered the question you raised. Concepts like parts authentication and secure boot are great in theory. The immoral part is their implementation. They're designed to wrestle the post-sale control of devices away from the customer and consolidate it in the hands of the manufacturer. Besides the subversion of the concept of ownership itself, this leads to increased cost of device ownership in many different ways.
  - jajko 3y ago
    Its a bit like PR stunt for the techies here, while giving master keys to whole cloud to NSA behind the doors. And to claim this will never-ever-pinky-promise-happen we shall show it on some highly publicized FBI case. Maybe there were good intentions in the beginning and path was truly a good one, but not for a nanosecond do I believe they really made it 100%. Phone is simply not a secure device, doesn't matter who manufactures it, period. Neither are all the networks used to connect anywhere. If all this lowers theft its a good strategy overall, but with terrible misguided marketing.
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      Actual techies are interested in the inner workings and can see past marketing. The group you're referring to is either the wider public that doesn't have the technical expertise to analyze the claims made, or Apple loyalists who uncritically accept and defend Apple's reasoning. If this had anything to do with theft, Apple would only blacklist parts which were inside the device at the time of theft, and otherwise provide "pairing" tools for free.
finnjohnsen2 3y ago
> Neurotransmitters signaling pain happen throughout our human population I love this formulation
CharlesW 3y ago
> Maybe I read too much philosophy… Or maybe not enough? Several philosophical frameworks are perfectly compatible with Apple doing legal things to benefit themselves and their customers.
throwaway48476 3y ago
Companies are just a trick to make you think they're not made of of people when in fact it's just a mask for decisions made by real fleshy humans. When a company does something immoral it is because a human at the company did something immoral.

Kon-Peki 3y ago

The text of this law is here [1]. The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust. Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do anything. You can be just an average person repairing your own device, in which case the manufacturer must work with you. But you can expect to be forced to prove that you own the device before that happens. [1] https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1596/Enrolled https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/Meas...

Spivak 3y ago
It's the same for doing work on your house. If you're the owner you don't need to be licensed to do most repairs or renovations but to work on other people's houses you need certification. Not saying it's a good system, just that it's consistent.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  No, this would be like if the city's electrical supply house got to choose what counted as an electrical qualification.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  The difference being is that electricians are certified by a real and reputable body and manufacturers don’t get to pick and choose. No doubt they will weaponise this ability
  - samatman 3y ago
    No they won't. The disconnect between computer programming and law is a rich and perennial source of amusement here on Hacker News. What happens if the manufacturer decides to be unreasonable, by saying that no industry standard of certification is acceptable, or just the one organization they founded themselves, or that sort of thing, is that they get a sharply-worded letter from the Oregon DA. If they don't sort it out then legal action will be taken. So they're not going to do that in the first place, because everyone actually involved in this stuff already knows that. The law isn't compiled. Its function relies on a common understanding of context which is the major course of study in law school. If a CEO ordered a company to do the sort of thing you're proposing, it would be against the advice of council.

bobim 3y ago

So next phone is going to be a FairPhone. Some companies are playing the game, vote with your wallet.

dangus 3y ago
If they supported the US it would be a lovely option. I’m personally just not buying a smartphone that isn’t being tested on US networks.
- bobim 3y ago
  The 4 seems to be available. 5 not yet.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Even the 4 being available through some kind of weird but official third party is kind of off to me. I really don’t understand how they haven’t prioritized the US market by now. It is probably the market that spends the most on phones.
    - anticrymactic 3y ago
      The US is also the region with the strongest iOS market dominance. Why compete for 30% of a saturated market, when EU/ME/India is more lucrative and also much closer to the EU based operation. It just makes more sense to focus on domestic markets. Same with many US brands.
digging 3y ago
> vote with your wallet. In other words, do nothing of any impact.
- bobim 3y ago
  it's just that it's the only lever you have at hand that is actually wired to something.

sircastor 3y ago

There’s a lot about right to repair that’s important. One thing I’m curious about is how “certified” correlates with “how we want you to fix it” Apples approach has often been at a module level: replace the logic board, replace the battery, etc. Board repair houses often operate at the component level: replace a damaged chip. In the case of the latter, access to schematics and board layout makes this possible, and I’m sure Apple (and everyone else) has zero interest in making these available. Likewise with custom parts. Modules, but not chips.

UberFly 3y ago
I don't understand who hands out the certifications. Apple?
FireBeyond 3y ago
> Apples approach has often been at a module level: replace the logic board, replace the battery, etc. Board repair houses often operate at the component level: replace a damaged chip. With a VERY liberal view of "module". I had an MBA with a damaged battery charging circuit. Battery was fine. Computer was fine on AC. Just couldn't get current to battery. Oh, okay, few hundred bucks? "The estimate to repair is $850..." Followed rapidly, "Do you want to take a look at the new MBAs and maybe we look at you getting into something upgraded instead?"

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] Some more discussion last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39606952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39606952

chalst 3y ago

-> But it also takes aim at “parts pairing,” or the practice of preventing you from replacing device parts without the approval of a company or its restrictive software. Apple, which routinely uses this practice to try and monopolize repair, lobbied extensively against the Oregon bill. As usual, under the (false) claim that eliminating parts pairing would put public safety and security at risk: -> “We remain very concerned about the risk to consumers imposed by the broad parts-pairing restrictions in this bill,” John Perry, principal secure repair architect for Apple, said at a legislative hearing last month.” There was a time when interpreting the “risk to consumers” as a risk of being prevented from gouging consumers would be cynical. Now I guess something like that occurred to the lawyers.

hedora 3y ago
It does sound like this means it's now easier to get a touch screen, embed a tap logger in it, and then swap someone else's screen with it. (Similarly, for the camera module, etc, etc.) A better approach would be to force Apple to allow the device owner to pair parts (third party or not), and for Apple to provide a list of authorized non-OEM parts to anyone that was considering buying a used phone. Also, I wonder what this does to the anti-theft mechanisms. Before touch id, basically nobody set screen passwords, and phones were stolen at extremely high rates. After that, and because a stolen iPhone is marked as such and won't work with Apple services, phone theft dropped to almost zero. If Apple's not allowed to prevent the pairing of the stolen parts in Oregon, I'm guessing it will lead to a black market industry there, where people launder stolen phone parts into refurbished phones by mixing them with parts from broken phones.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  The point of module-level pairing is to make every module is identifiable, correct? Furthermore, these devices are only usable when connected to the internet. IF their goal was merely to prevent theft, they could achieve that goal by simply blacklisting individual components when a device is reported stolen. Apple knows precise serial numbers of every paired component installed in that device, they just need to host a database of stolen parts that devices could query on every boot and on a set interval. Of course, that's not their true goal, so they treat everyone like thieves in the hopes that they buy a new device instead.

pcdoodle 3y ago

Apple behaviour has invoked the "pause button" on my purchasing of new hardware from them. Nobody wants to build on your platform if you're a tyrant.

RussianCow 3y ago
> Nobody wants to build on your platform if you're a tyrant. [citation needed] In practice, I think people mostly follow the money and idealism barely factors into it.

dahdum 3y ago

I don’t think bills like this will matter in several years for phones, unless they somehow start forcing manufacturers to design for manual repair. The end game for all these manufacturers is a phone assembled, repaired, and disassembled for recycling entirely by machine. I believe they already do this for the recycling. I support right to repair in general, and I’m not particularly opposed to this bill, but it seems a bit hopeless in the long run.

blkhawk 3y ago
lol no thas not the end goal because its a net negative to repair stuff no matter how cheap and easy you can do it. Every repaired last years model is a this years model not sold. Manufacturers try to pretend that they are pro repair but very few are really.
- blkhawk 3y ago
  anybody who has manual manipulators and a manual can repair a manually repairable device. A device that needs special tools to break open or take apart increases the likelyhood that its just tossed and this years new model is bought instead.
- dahdum 3y ago
  The end goal is automation and functionality regardless of how difficult it makes manual repair. Almost nobody values manual repair capability when purchasing, so why would manufacturers? Consumers just want easy repair/replace when it happens, and the more resilient the product the less they care.
dns_snek 3y ago
Even if they don't explicitly design for manual repair, forcing them to publicly provide schematics, individual components (directly or through an agreement with their supplier), and any software required to successfully complete the repair would be a big step in the right direction.

jetti 3y ago

Most of the talk seems to be around Apple, which makes sense since they were opponents of the bill but I am more interested to see how this affects game console manufacturers. I had a longer post I had typed out about how console manufacturers have prevented non-authorized peripherals in the past with parts pairing and I was curious how that would affect the consoles going forward. I re-read the parts pairing section to make sure I read it correctly and then stumbled upon the section that refers to what the parts pairing restriction does not apply to and it is clearly written out that it does not apply to video game consoles. I find it very interesting that this applies to smart phones but not to video game consoles at all.

silexia 3y ago
Apple is the biggest scumbag opponent of right to repair.
dml2135 3y ago
The video game console question is very interesting. I think a lot of right-to-repair advocates, right now, are fine with carving out an exception, for a few reasons. One, video game consoles have no pretense to being generalized computing devices. They are more similar to appliances, and while that appliance status is arguable, they are definitely closer to that right now than smartphones. Two, people have nostalgia for video game consoles. They like the packaged nature of it and generally have more good will towards console manufacturers than computer manufacturers (although that part is arguable and may be changing). Three is politics. It's already hard enough to go up against companies like Apple to get these bills passed. You do not want Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo lining up to oppose you as well. With all that said though, there is no reason I can see that the arguments used for right to repair -- that users should have full control over the devices they own -- should not also apply to video game consoles. But doing so would mean that consoles are no different than PCs, and would have huge implications for the industry. Those lines are being blurred already with things like the Steam Deck and I think we're just a few years away from that upheaval, but it hasn't quite happened yet -- hence you see these carve-outs. edit: Upon rereading what I wrote I realize that I may be conflating right-to-repair with regulations around app stores and walled gardens. They're not exactly the same thing, but I do think they touch on the same issues of the meaning of ownership, which is what set me off.

shkkmo 3y ago

What happens if a company refuses to sell in Oregon, can they skirt the law?

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Oregon’s laws can only apply to products sold in Oregon.
mrinterweb 3y ago
I wonder about this too. People would probably buy through 3rd parties (Amazon, etc). I don't know if the law would restrict Amazon and other vendors to not sell non-compliant devices in Oregon. Thing is, it is not just Oregon. Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, Minnesota, Maine and California all have right to repair laws. It is not possible for companies to remain competitive and not sell in those states.

radicaldreamer 3y ago

Until recently you couldn’t pump your own gas in Oregon

mattbillenstein 3y ago

Recently bought a Framework laptop - their mission is easily repairable diy hardware with good software (Linux!) support. Still using an iPhone though - it is a bit crazy how expensive these have gotten and how repairs can be so expensive.

dependsontheq 3y ago

I think it’s hilarious that a lot of people here talk about the bureaucracy in Europe and then immediately switch to specific state laws regulating technology for one state.

lupusreal 3y ago
The people who oppose EU regulation of tech probably also oppose this. The people who support that probably also support this. The mistake you're making is "everybody except me is one person."
- dependsontheq 3y ago
  I didn't argue for or against regulation, my point is that the US regulations structure with specific states defining technological regulation is even more insane than EU regulations on technology. Because common market regulations are clearly defined as EU responsibility.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    You implied that people here are being hypocritical for supporting one but criticizing the other. However you never established that it's the same people who have these evidently contradictory opinions. If it's different people having different opinions then there is no "switching", no hypocrisy, nothing for you to find hilarious.

tantalor 3y ago

Letting owners repair their own devices is great and should align well with existing warranties for tech stuff. The other day, a volume button on my bluetooth speaker stopped working and I could tell it was damaged so I opened it up and found the circuit board supporting the button was snapped. When I initially approached the manufacturer for a warranty, they declined because they assumed I had taken the device to a non-approved repair shop, which would void the warranty. When I explained, no I'm the owner (here's the receipt), and I opened it up to check for damage, then they fulfilled the warranty no problem.

justinzollars 3y ago

Easy solution. Just stop selling new devices in Oregon.

sashank_1509 3y ago

consider this, if Apple makes you sign a form that when buying this iPhone, you have no right to repair it on your own or take it to a non authorized repair shop. You must go to Apple to get those repairs. How many consumers do you think would sign this? I reckon a good large majority, at least the number of people buying Apple care now would buy this. This is what kills right to repair, Apple and similar companies obviously lobby against it, but that’s not what kills Right to repair, the fact is regardless of the number of laws passed to support right to repair, until a majority of consumers are willing to repair stuff on their own or with third party repair-ers, right to repair will only matter to the small minority of people who care about it.

uncletammy 3y ago
Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer and there are millions of consumers of non-apple hardware that will gleefully welcome this legislation. I agree that consumers are the real problem but government intervention provides a much needed safety net to keep these oligopolistic practices at bay while users slowly figure out why right to repair matters. We should be happy for any and all help we can get on this front.

m463 3y ago

I replaced my iphone 8 screen and battery at a third party repair service. What is great is that the repair was done in front of me while I waited. I didn't have to upgrade my OS or backup my data (though I did). It was fast and inexpensive. But... The automatic screen brightness no longer works. I have to manually adjust the brightness (which is sometimes challenging with dim screen in bright sunlight) I think the ambient light sensor must be calibrated, and only by apple. wonder if it can be fixed in oregon?

mgarfias 3y ago

I need to bug my neighbor about why he voted no.